Recent

That's such a well thought out response. So glad you chimed in to enlighten me.
Funny thing is - once your mind matures beyond early adolescence, you'll learn that, when people know they're wrong, they tend to respond with nonsense and name calling.

@ protour - whatever your personal agenda is, you should try to keep it in check. Makes you sound like a lunatic.
By your standard, the V10 disappointed for several years, the new GT continues to disappoint, Devinci disappoints, and Trek, Commencal, Kona, Giant, Scott, Polygon . . . . all overhyped disappointments. Man, how do you find a bike that meets your standards?
Have you produced a WC capable bike? If so, I'd love to see it - and know who's riding it. It would have to be a piece of engineering genius the likes of which the world has never seen.

Waki - I'll end my comments here generally as I started. The opinions posted by several here are funny to me. I don't understand the emotional, negative reactions to the introduction of a bike (and what could be a really fun bike made in response to consumer demand). I also find it curious when such strong negative views are expressed without considering or understanding the whole picture.
Patents and trademarks are very different types of intellectual property. Trademarks based on geographic names often have to be cultivated by the trademark owner. Creating "connotations" around such a name and associating it with a certain product is precisely how enforceable trademark rights are created and maintained. Your argument and rational above are just incorrect. They ignore centuries of trademark/branding laws and the everyday activities of companies around the world (including the company Specialized has to pay to use the Roubaix name in the US). In fact, the existence and history of Roubaix place an even heavier burden on Specialized to police and enforce the mark if they want to preserve its value for their product.
"Olympics" is a trademark that is heavily policed by the owner, even though the IOC has nothing to do with the Greek originators. Same with "Le Mans" for both racing and auto products. A company owns the mark "Moab" for use in association with products and services related to off-road mods for 4x4s, and they sought to enforce the mark against Jeep. How about "Santa Cruz" for bikes?
I'm not defending Specialized. Specialized came to the right decision on its own, albeit too late to avoid some real fallout. I'm trying to add an informed perspective. Too many comments here completely ignore realities of the commercial and legal landscapes large companies have to navigate.

That's half the story. You forgot to mention that within days, Specialized decided to drop it and Mike Sinyard took the time to visit the shop and it's owner to apologize.
You might not know this, but if you own or license a trademark, you have to actively defend it or risk losing it. Plus, Specialized actually has to license this trademark in the US. Their license agreement might require them to take actions to preserve the value of or even build value in that brand. If you don't actively police trademarks, you diminish the value of your own intellectual property.

Two Tone,
I'm so glad you asked. First, I've been to Specialized HQ and around their team trailer, and I didn't see any cigar-smoking monopoly men. I looked really hard, but I didn't even find ashtrays, glassware for a bar, or a single stray smoking jacket.
But you're right, what was I thinking? Specialized has had nothing to do with creating or improving the sport. They weren't one of the first companies to build dedicated mountain bikes, and the Stumpjumper hasn't been a top tier (and often class leading) mountain bike since 1981.
And smaller manufacturers should curse Specialized. Seriously, you never see Chromag, Race Face, Loaded, Industry9, E Thirteen, Hope, Formula, MRP, etc., etc. hanging from Specialized bikes. Those companies derive no benefit from larger manufactures like Specialized that create thousands of opportunities for mountain bikers to upgrade, replace, and customize components.
Plus, how lame is it that over the course of decades Specialized (among others) has sponsored some of the most inspiring athletes across all MTB disciplines? That's not helpful at all. Who needs it? We certainly don't want any more Sea Otters or race events. And if I have to watch another video from the Coastal Crew, or from Darren Berrecloth, or Matt Hunter, or Mitch Ropelato, or Troy Brosnan, or Martin Soderstrom, I'm going to lose it. They're not awesome or inspiring.
Your persuasive "load of crap" argument really got me thinking. When "load of crap" is combined with the multiple exclamation points from gnarlized, you have an airtight case. It's inconceivable that Specialized actually makes great bikes. And all the product of the year, bike of the year, glowing reviews from media in the US and internationally, athlete reviews, and product sales are meaningless.

@gnaralized,
What evidence do you have to back your claim that Specialized gets good reviews only because of "a huge marketing budget?" That's just a crutch to support your emotion-based argument. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they make great bikes with dialed geometry. The company wants to make a great product and is filled with people that love to ride. You might not like them. You might choose to ride something different, but it's not some evil company with backrooms filled with cigar-smoking monopoly men.
A fairly recent Pinkbike survey asked Pinkbikers which brand of bike they rode and which brand of bike they would buy next. Specialized dominated. As expensive as high-end mountain bikes are, even in the face of marketing hype, people are going to demand a great product.
Consider that the company was one of the originators of the mountain bike and mountain biking as we know it. Now, consider that the quality of their products (and that of other significant manufacturers) actually helps create an industry that supports a market that allows smaller brands and component makers to thrive. Now, consider that without companies like Specialized, MTB racing and technology would be nowhere near the level we enjoy today. Why have such a negative, knee-jerk reaction to a company that has made a huge difference to the sport?

@gnarlized -
I think we should get clear about marketing hype. Calling 650B wheels "27.5" is marketing hype. They are not 27.5. Depending on the tires you use, 650B can actually be quite close to 26. Companies use "27.5" to make you feel like your getting the best of both worlds. They're selling the perfect middle ground, halfway between the fun of 26 and the rolling characteristics of 29. They've deliberately selected a term that they knew would catch attention - speak to those who think 29ers are too ungainly but don't want to ride unfashionable 26" wheels.
And I didn't say Specialized adapted their 26 bikes to go 650. But if they did adapt the 650 Stumpjumper from the 29r, that shows just how good their 29r really is. Plus, I have to say that I'm impressed that you can tell just how good a bike is by looking at a catalog picture. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to ride a bike before deciding how it will perform.
By the way, Specialized never said that Trek, Santa Cruz, Cannondale, etc. produce crappy bikes. And no one is saying Specialized is the only company that knows how to manipulate bike geometry. However, Specialized is one of the companies that does it well, and they have produced some amazing bikes that take full advantage of the 29 inch wheel size. Take a look at what other companies have on offer. You'll find relatively few that have bikes as well regarded as Specialized's current 29r line-up, regardless of wheel size.

Specialized didn't do anything to kill 650. And I don't see how an honest evaluation of 26 vs 650 vs 29 is bashing. People supposedly don't want marketing hype, but they apparently don't want honest views either.
Consider the context of those interviews. Media/industry reviewers want to know "why go 29 and not 650?" - wouldn't 650 be a better choice for long-travel enduro? - if other companies are turning to 650, why go 29? Specialized invested the resources to create 29rs that perform better than many 650 offerings. Maybe they designed these bikes with a no compromise view - no need go 650 if we can design 29rs that maintain all the "fun" handling characteristics. In that context, what would your answer be? If that was my product, and I knew how good it was, I wouldn't hesitate to promote it. If you want the full benefit of larger wheel size, 650 is too close to 26, especially when you can create awesome 29rs.
Specialized is not killing its 29rs to go 650. They're killing 26 and going with 650 for their smaller wheel size, and 650 is still closer to 26 than to 29. For product differentiation and innovation, leading with the 29rs makes a lot of sense.